Linking Boston To Religion.

The is much discussion in the press attributing the Boston bombing with a trip one of the accused took to the Russian territory. The motive, it is concluded, was religion.

We know there are countless atrocities linked to “religion”. The link below mentions nationalists of countries who also killed but were officially not religious.

While I have made accusations the Christian faith has had more than its share of wars waged in the name of the faith, I also believe all religions are products of the prevailing culture. Thus, I have to conclude killing enemies is inseparable from the culture. When the culture is one which takes lives at will, the religion will be identified as the cause.

Interestingly, the link below says the most religious killing has been Buddhist. The Buddhists I know don’t even regard it as a religion. But, others do.

In my view, the terrorist events in the U. S. are over analyzed. They seem like random crimes and the people who do them are less religious zealots and more simply criminals.

This distinction is important. President Bush decided the 9/11 terrorists were products of a country in which a violent form of Islam had taken over. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified on the basis of this.

If they had been considered simply random common criminals, perhaps the response would have been to beef up our security, instead of invade a country.

Hopefully, the response to Boston will not be entirely focused on religion and be more rational.

Related

Post navigation

18 Responses

Michael Ross

Everyone should listen to the speech given by General Smedly Butler in the 1930’s, “War is a Racket”.
How he and millions of American military men have fought and died for big money interests. Religion is one thing that is used to enlist the public’s support for wars knowing that it is something people feel strongly about. Those behind the scenes care little about religious faith themselves. They worship only money and power.

Butler was a two-time Medal of Honor winner and was in line to become Commandant of the Marine Corps except that President Woodrow Wilson disapproved of him because of being outspoken against U.S. foreign policy.

Must admit to fast forwarding a lot, but hasn’t it always been the same?
Bertrand Russel talking about being a pacifist said something along the lines of sending the young men out to die was bad enough but what you were really doing is sending them out to kill, and that is much worse.

Come on Henry even you know that is not true. Atheists because they refused to recognize the gods of Rome the Christian were in one way responsible, the Gods withdrew their protection because Christians were tolerated, the first persecutions were thus an act of appeasement by Nero.
Both sides finished up with a lot of bad press over this Nero has been blamed for centuries when he wasn’t even in Rome at the time, the Christians were blamed because they were atheists and it was a punishment from the Gods.

From this it can be seen that the religious stupidity that causes people to say that the recent weather problems in New York were God’s punishment for permitting Gay Marriage has a long history. The sooner people realise that there probably is no God and even if there were the likelihood that he/she/it has any interest in what we maggots do is pretty slim. What is that really good line (can’t be bothered looking it up) “vanity all is vanity” that pretty well sums up the modern Christian- God created the universe with me in mind, God has plans for me and if some person or group does something he doesn’t like it will spoil all the plans, the things that are permitted and those that are prohibited have revealed to me or my spiritual leader by this god (which stubbornly remains invisible and undetectable)
So there we have it, New York brought trouble on itself for impiety, Christians in Rome brought trouble on themselves for impiety. Atheists are to blame for everything be they Christian atheists or complete atheists.
(definitions: Christian atheists don’t believe in any god but one (three actually, but who is counting) all the others are false or imaginary. Complete atheists don’t even believe in that three in one job that Christians believe in.)

Been thinking about “defensive” over supper, and I still can’t make sense of it. I know when you are “a little desperate” and feel the need to make an attack you sometimes take ideas from thin air over the top of your head, and quite often pull them out of somewhere more fundamental.

Please explain this one for me, I will tell you my thinking:
Rome burning is generally accepted to have been accidental, nothing to do with Christians at all. And, I am assuming your commentary was tongue in cheek, perhaps even sarcastic.

Christian were not popular with the general population because they would not accept the God’s of the City, the locals being a little on the superstitious side thought that any insult to the gods, such as failure to recognise and pay proper respect, would lead to the gods getting angry and doing nasty things. Actually the early Christians, probably still with memories of Jewish law and the ten commandments, would appreciate this sentiment, the first three state this specifically as being the same position for their own god. So modern Christians should appreciate both sides and understand why in the light of catastrophe it would be easy for Nero, he had a ready made scapegoat.

I would suggest there is nothing up to this point to disagree on. Now the exaggeration of the superstitious aspects was pure hyperbole, sure there are preachers who are desperate for attention and controversy that will blame natural calamity on the anger and jealousy of their God, with as much knowledge and justification as the Romans had.

I had thought the exaggeration was an obvious continuation of your tongue in cheek talk of blaming Christians for a natural calamity, but as I conclude I realise that you may actually believe such things yourself, that God aims cyclones and tornadoes at places that have incurred his wrath, in which case the “defensive” would be on your part, hard to defend such a position but your attempts to defend the indefensible do explain a lot, I must remember to be more careful about when I take you seriously. Goodnight.

If you weren’t so black and white, so narrow you would notice that I was defending the integrity of the Christians sticking to their principles. On other occasions you lot are proud of this martyrdom, but because an atheist presents a balanced picture it is wrong.

I am not sure that this statement, “…the most warlike religion in the modern world, measured by the proportion of countries at war where it has a significant following, is actually Buddhism.” means that Buddhism is the cause or driving force of the unrest. It simply states that a higher proportion of countries have a significant Buddhist following and are involved in conflict of some sort. Buddhism would not be used as the reason to fight–you are more likely to see a monk or follower setting himself on fire to protest a war or government action. Buddhism has a miniscule presence in the “settled countries” where the largest absolute number of conflicts are. The past Killing Fields in Cambodia were not justified by protecting Buddhism. While Buddhism is considered one of the world’s Great Religions, by numbers it is small, having 6% of the world following it. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html).

Is it a religion? To some followers is it and to others it is not, depending on which branch (or Vessel) they follow. A Buddhist in Thailand will go to his temple to “make merit”, gove offerings and to pray to the Buddha for intercession just like any other religious person prays to her God. A Zen adherent, if asked if he worshiped the Buddha, might surprise you by saying, “The Buddha is dead. I killed him!” and that answer would be wise because he knows that the idea of a Buddha and Buddha-hood can get in the way of ones own enlightenment and thus must be done away with.

The problem with defining these Boston bombers and other killers as “terrorist combatants” motivated by religion, and in particular the radical Islam of the mideast, is that it elevates their stature. It rewards them for what they did because it gives them international recognition. By treating them just as criminal killers, their stature is insignificant in the corporate military weapons peddler’s “war on terror”.

I agree Brad. Without “Terrorists” across the globe plotting our demise at any second, we can’t be buying bunches of weapons and employing mercenaries, and getting ready to attack / invade the next country that harbors “terrorists”.

The war on “terror” is a joke. The “terror” is something self created, the biggest joke of it all is that the government told us how we should feel and so we bought it. We should feel terrified this could happen anywhere anytime, so, we need the government to come in and save us… Please… Yes, Boston was a tragedy and I am saddened that people lost their lives and their livelyhoods.

Call it for what it is, an act of violence by very mentally sick people. No different than the people going into schools and shooting a bunch of kids. It’s all violence, sad, sick, tragic violence. Nothing less, nothing more.

Wolfy; The stated goal of Islam via the Taliban, Al Queda, and others is for world wide conquest. The level of jehad depends on where each individual is at in their “struggle”. You could team up with Realist, and sent some of your “Nice People” over there, or meet with their cells here and ask them to be nice so they won’t bother us. I’m sure they will comply? Anything we do is only an excuse to be agressive. Remember their stated purpose is “world wide conquest”. They don’t need an excuse. However feel free to ask for their mercy, and study their material.

All the problems with Israel and the Palestinians based on the mistreatment of the Palestinians (while wrong), is nothing more than an excuse. If Israel agreed with ALL the demands of the Palestinians, even up to the point of disolving the state of Israel will never be enough. Remember they need no excuse. They will make an excuse if not given one, and they are given many.

I agree with you.. Yet, I feel our nation has politicized it, made it a catch phrase, and now can use it for anything. The Patriot Act was the Death Knell for Freedom. All in the name of the “war on terror” which, when Bush formed that catch phrase, I’m curious… Since, some of 9/11, according to the 9/11 commisison/ investigative reports, may not have been the results of terrorists at all..

Either way, anyone or anything can be labeled a terrorist and we’re instantly at war with them. It could be a single person, a nation, a group of people, or whatever our government wants it to be.

Imagine if the people caught for the Boston thing, weren’t guilty of the crime, and were just two semi – foreign looking guys the government named as terrorists and capture them. I’m not saying that’s the case in this case. However, it’s the Marxist era all over again. We can label anyone a communist and arrest them, only now the coined term is terrorist. oops. So and so is a terrorist, arrest him…

I get that there are serious threats against our nation. I understand that. I disagree with an abstract war that knows no boundaries!

ABOUT

Jon Lindgren taught economics at North Dakota State University and was mayor of Fargo for 16 years. He belongs to the Red River Freethinkers and Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers.
Freethinking is hundreds of years old. Freethinking is about deciding independently rather than accepting the dogma of religious or civic authorities.